In a unilateral placement case, when parents are seeking reimbursement for a private school placement, parents must demonstrate that the private placement the child is attending is "appropriate" for that child. This presents what the courts have deemed a "stringent but not impossible" task. Parents meet this burden by demonstrating that the private placement meets the child's needs and provides the child with educational benefit. Courts will look at whether the placement reasonably serves the child's individual needs.
This analysis is obviously fact-sensitive and varies in every single case. The "appropriateness" of the private placement is something parents need to keep in mind at every stage of this process, from deciding to disagree with the district's proposed placement, to searching for an appropriate alternative, to deciding if/when to seek reimbursement.
Things to Consider:
There are many things parents can consider when deciding on a placement. Its helpful to start out with a list of your child's unique needs as a starting place so that you can keep in mind how the different components of various options may (or may not) meet those needs. Then make a list of the things that would be required to be in a program for it to be appropriate for the child. Utilize your experts and evaluators during this stage if possible.
Examples of factors to think about include:
* Class size: does your child need a small class size with fewer peers? higher teacher:student ratio?
* Campus size / setting: does your child get overwhelmed in a large campus setting? are there safety concerns that may arise in larger settings?
* Specialized Instructional Methods: what specialized instructional programs does your child need? for example, does your child need specialized instruction for reading and is it available at this placement?
* Behavioral Components: what type of behavioral program does your child require? will class-wide behavior modification work? does your child require staff with certain training or experience to address his/her behavior?
* Social Skills Components: does your child need social skills instruction as part of a classroom curriculum component? in-the-moment training and facilitation throughout the day? does your child need access to appropriate social-models in terms of peers?
* Training of Staff: does your child require access to staff with specific training or experience working with kids with particular needs / disabilities?
Thinking about topics like these will help parents to ensure that if they are in the situation of having to choose a private alternative for placement, that placement is one that meets the child's needs so as to be considered "appropriate" when they are later seeking reimbursement.
Remember that the appropriateness of the private placement is only one factor, and only applies if the District's proposed placement is found to be inappropriate. While making a list of your child's unique needs and considering these factors when analyzing placement offers and options naturally will lead to some comparison between the District's placement and the private one, remember that comparing them is not the analysis the court will use. It is not enough simply to show that the private placement is "better," because ultimately you must show that the District's placement was not appropriate.
Showing posts with label unique needs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label unique needs. Show all posts
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Private Placements Part 2: When an alternative may be necessary
Unilateral placement cases are highly fact-specific and each case is unique. It is advisable that a parent seeking to place their child unilaterally and obtain reimbursement for the costs of that placement obtain assistance from a special education attorney or highly experienced advocate from the initial stages of this process. An attorney or advocate can assist the parent with following all of the necessary steps in the process along the way.
The previous post in this series talks about when and how a parent gives notice to the school district of their decision to place their child unilaterally at a private school. Prior to reaching the point of providing notice, parents must go through the process of determining that a private placement is necessary for their child. The case law recognizes that such a determination is made at the parents' financial risk; that is, there is no guarantee that the parent would ultimately be reimbursed. Therefore, the determination to take such a step should only be made when it is necessary, and must be done cautiously. This second part of the "private placement" blog series discusses factors and situations that may give rise to such a determination.
Parents have attempted to work with the District to find another suitable alternative
Generally, parents should not rush into a unilateral, private placement without first trying to work within the District's system to locate an appropriate alternative. This doesn't mean that every child has to necessarily "try" the District's proposed classroom before the private placement occurs. But it does mean that parents should work cooperatively with the District, attend and participate in IEP meetings, voice their concerns about placements proposed by the District, go and observe District programs when possible, and provide the District with input from private experts or independent evaluators. If the District has not been given the "opportunity" to provide the student with an appropriate program, ultimately it is likely that a judge will find that reimbursement is not appropriate.
Private placement should be considered, therefore, in situations where the parent has actively and cooperatively participated in IEPs and placement discussions and has made efforts to work with the District to secure an approrpiate publicly funded placement. Many parents only turn to a unilateral placement after visiting / observing all of the recommended placements by the District, having multiple meetings with the District about placement, voicing their concerns, etc, and then determining that there is no appropriate option within the District's alternatives and private placement is therefore necessary. To read an example of such a case, see Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York, 39 IDELR 56 (SEA NY 2002).
The District delayed completion of or implementation of an appropriate IEP, thereby denying educational benefit
In some circumstances, the district's unjustifiable delay in completing or implementing an IEP may cause such a loss of educational benefit to the student as to support the need for a private placement and reimbursment to parents. Consider whether the district has failed to complete an IEP at all, leaving it "in limbo" such that the student has no program in place. If this has happened, parents may be faced with a choice between leaving their child with no specialized program, or unilaterally placing the child in an appropriate program and seeking reimbursement. If the issue is not development of the IEP, but implementation, it is important to look at whether the component that has not been implemented was essential to the IEP, and the lack of that component meant that the program itself was no longer appropriate. Again, parents are then faced with a difficult choice between allowing their child to continue in the inappropriate program or unilaterally placing him/her. The cases on this issue are very fact specific, so it should not be simply assumed that any time the district fails to implement the IEP, unilateral placement will be justified. Again, it would be a good idea to have an expert opinion regarding the impact of the delay or non-implementation. For examples of such cases, read Board of Educ. of Chatham Cent. Sch. Dist., 39 IDELR 144 (SEA NY 2003 and Ms. M ex rel K.M. v. Portland Sch. Comm., 39 IDELR 33 (D. Me. 2003).
Student has made no progress in the District's program
When a student has already been in a specific program offered and provided by the school district, and that program has proved to be inappropriate or ineffective, it may be time for parents to consider an alternative. This scenario necessitates looking objectively at the data and information about the child to adequately determine if there has been progress or not, and therefore usually requires an expert's opinion. If the student has been in the program / methodology, ask yourself if he/she has made little to no progress in the specific area being addressed. Also, it is important to look at what the District knew or should have been aware of with regards to the lack of progress. Is this a situation where ongoing progress reports, IEP documents and other data were demonstrating for a significant amount of time that no progress was being made, yet the district ignored such data and continued to offer the same kind of program? Or is it a situation where there was no clear data on an ongoing basis, so maybe no one was aware of the lack of progress until the child was reevaluated much later? An alternative placement may be more appropriate in a situation where not only was the district's program ineffective and inappropriate, but the district also continued to offer said program despite indication that it wasn't working. For an example of such a case, read Draper v. Atlanta Indep. Sch. System, 108 LRP 13764 (11th Circuit 2008).
In some cases, there may be data and evidence that not only establishes lack of progress, but actual regression in some areas. If the child is regressing, rather than progressing, under the district's program, then parents may need to look for an alternative. In these situations, expert opinion would be critical to establish regression. Also, you should consider factors such as whether the district knew the child was regressing, how they responded, and whether they are now offering something different. Fo an example, read J.P. v. County Sch. Bd. of Hanover County, Va 46 IDELR 133 (E.D. Va. 2006).
District has offered a prospective placement that is not appropriate
Commonly, parents consider unilateral placements because of a dispute about what the district has offered prospectively. When the district's IEP and placement offer will not meet the child's needs or enable him/her to obtain educational benefit, the parents may need to consider rejecting that offer and unilaterally placing the child. Again, this is a very fact sensitive scenario, and the parents must consider the IEP offer carefully. An expert who can not only evaluate the child's unique needs, but also observe the proposed placement will most likely be necessary. It is important to look at what the child's identified unique needs are and evaluate the proposed IEP on whether or not it will meet those needs. Consider if there is a specific type of setting, for instance, that the child requires, or whether the child needs a therapuetic component to address his/her social / emotional needs. The totality of the factors will be considered in these situations to determine if the district offered FAPE, and ultimately if the parent is entitled to reimbursement for the unilateral placement. For examples of such cases, read Lamoine Sch. Comm. v. Ms. Z. ex rel N.S. 42 IDELR 172 (D. Me. 2005) and Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. for the City of N.Y. 35 IDELR 28 (SEA NY 2001).
Remember that whatever situation arises that causes parents to consider a unilateral placement, parents need to be careful and consider all of the district's options before making such a decision. Consult with experts, providers and persons who know your child. It may also be necessary to consult with a special education advocate or attorney.
The next blog in this series will discuss another issue in private placement cases, which is consideration of whether the unilateral, private placement is appropriate.
The previous post in this series talks about when and how a parent gives notice to the school district of their decision to place their child unilaterally at a private school. Prior to reaching the point of providing notice, parents must go through the process of determining that a private placement is necessary for their child. The case law recognizes that such a determination is made at the parents' financial risk; that is, there is no guarantee that the parent would ultimately be reimbursed. Therefore, the determination to take such a step should only be made when it is necessary, and must be done cautiously. This second part of the "private placement" blog series discusses factors and situations that may give rise to such a determination.
Parents have attempted to work with the District to find another suitable alternative
Generally, parents should not rush into a unilateral, private placement without first trying to work within the District's system to locate an appropriate alternative. This doesn't mean that every child has to necessarily "try" the District's proposed classroom before the private placement occurs. But it does mean that parents should work cooperatively with the District, attend and participate in IEP meetings, voice their concerns about placements proposed by the District, go and observe District programs when possible, and provide the District with input from private experts or independent evaluators. If the District has not been given the "opportunity" to provide the student with an appropriate program, ultimately it is likely that a judge will find that reimbursement is not appropriate.
Private placement should be considered, therefore, in situations where the parent has actively and cooperatively participated in IEPs and placement discussions and has made efforts to work with the District to secure an approrpiate publicly funded placement. Many parents only turn to a unilateral placement after visiting / observing all of the recommended placements by the District, having multiple meetings with the District about placement, voicing their concerns, etc, and then determining that there is no appropriate option within the District's alternatives and private placement is therefore necessary. To read an example of such a case, see Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York, 39 IDELR 56 (SEA NY 2002).
The District delayed completion of or implementation of an appropriate IEP, thereby denying educational benefit
In some circumstances, the district's unjustifiable delay in completing or implementing an IEP may cause such a loss of educational benefit to the student as to support the need for a private placement and reimbursment to parents. Consider whether the district has failed to complete an IEP at all, leaving it "in limbo" such that the student has no program in place. If this has happened, parents may be faced with a choice between leaving their child with no specialized program, or unilaterally placing the child in an appropriate program and seeking reimbursement. If the issue is not development of the IEP, but implementation, it is important to look at whether the component that has not been implemented was essential to the IEP, and the lack of that component meant that the program itself was no longer appropriate. Again, parents are then faced with a difficult choice between allowing their child to continue in the inappropriate program or unilaterally placing him/her. The cases on this issue are very fact specific, so it should not be simply assumed that any time the district fails to implement the IEP, unilateral placement will be justified. Again, it would be a good idea to have an expert opinion regarding the impact of the delay or non-implementation. For examples of such cases, read Board of Educ. of Chatham Cent. Sch. Dist., 39 IDELR 144 (SEA NY 2003 and Ms. M ex rel K.M. v. Portland Sch. Comm., 39 IDELR 33 (D. Me. 2003).
Student has made no progress in the District's program
When a student has already been in a specific program offered and provided by the school district, and that program has proved to be inappropriate or ineffective, it may be time for parents to consider an alternative. This scenario necessitates looking objectively at the data and information about the child to adequately determine if there has been progress or not, and therefore usually requires an expert's opinion. If the student has been in the program / methodology, ask yourself if he/she has made little to no progress in the specific area being addressed. Also, it is important to look at what the District knew or should have been aware of with regards to the lack of progress. Is this a situation where ongoing progress reports, IEP documents and other data were demonstrating for a significant amount of time that no progress was being made, yet the district ignored such data and continued to offer the same kind of program? Or is it a situation where there was no clear data on an ongoing basis, so maybe no one was aware of the lack of progress until the child was reevaluated much later? An alternative placement may be more appropriate in a situation where not only was the district's program ineffective and inappropriate, but the district also continued to offer said program despite indication that it wasn't working. For an example of such a case, read Draper v. Atlanta Indep. Sch. System, 108 LRP 13764 (11th Circuit 2008).
In some cases, there may be data and evidence that not only establishes lack of progress, but actual regression in some areas. If the child is regressing, rather than progressing, under the district's program, then parents may need to look for an alternative. In these situations, expert opinion would be critical to establish regression. Also, you should consider factors such as whether the district knew the child was regressing, how they responded, and whether they are now offering something different. Fo an example, read J.P. v. County Sch. Bd. of Hanover County, Va 46 IDELR 133 (E.D. Va. 2006).
District has offered a prospective placement that is not appropriate
Commonly, parents consider unilateral placements because of a dispute about what the district has offered prospectively. When the district's IEP and placement offer will not meet the child's needs or enable him/her to obtain educational benefit, the parents may need to consider rejecting that offer and unilaterally placing the child. Again, this is a very fact sensitive scenario, and the parents must consider the IEP offer carefully. An expert who can not only evaluate the child's unique needs, but also observe the proposed placement will most likely be necessary. It is important to look at what the child's identified unique needs are and evaluate the proposed IEP on whether or not it will meet those needs. Consider if there is a specific type of setting, for instance, that the child requires, or whether the child needs a therapuetic component to address his/her social / emotional needs. The totality of the factors will be considered in these situations to determine if the district offered FAPE, and ultimately if the parent is entitled to reimbursement for the unilateral placement. For examples of such cases, read Lamoine Sch. Comm. v. Ms. Z. ex rel N.S. 42 IDELR 172 (D. Me. 2005) and Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. for the City of N.Y. 35 IDELR 28 (SEA NY 2001).
Remember that whatever situation arises that causes parents to consider a unilateral placement, parents need to be careful and consider all of the district's options before making such a decision. Consult with experts, providers and persons who know your child. It may also be necessary to consult with a special education advocate or attorney.
The next blog in this series will discuss another issue in private placement cases, which is consideration of whether the unilateral, private placement is appropriate.
Friday, June 19, 2009
Fast Fact Friday: Recreational Therapy
Recreational Therapy is a related service under the IDEIA, and it includes "(i)assessment of leisure function; (ii) therapeutic recreation services; (iii) recreation programs in school and communities; and (iv) leisure education." 20 U.S.C. section 1401(26)(a); 34 C.F.R. section 300.34(b)(11). State statutes and regulations define RT more specifically.
California, for example, defines RT as including:
(a) Therapeutic recreation services, which are those specialized instructional programs designed to assist pupils in becoming as independent as possible in leisure activities, and when possible and appropriate, facilitate the pupil's integration into regular recreation programs;
(b) Recreation programs in schools and the community which are those programs that emphasize the use of leisure activity in the teaching of academic, social and daily living skills; and the provision of nonacademic and extracurricular leisure activities and the utilization of community recreation programs and facilities;
(c) Leisure education programs which are those specific programs designed to prepare the pupil for optimum independent participation in appropriate leisure activities, including teaching social skills necessary to engage in leisure activities, and developing awareness of personal and community leisure resources.
Title 5, California Code of Regulations, section 3051.15
Recreation and leisure can be areas of unique special education and related services needs for a student with a disability. These needs must be taken into consideration when developing the student's IEP. An RT assessment can be conducted by a Certified Therapeutic Recreation Specialist (CTRS), and should address how the student's functioning in the areas of physical, cognitive and social / emotional affect his/her ability to appropriately access leisure and recreational activities. Appropriate access to a leisure activity does not just mean playing the game - it means being able to understand the purpose of engaging in recreational activities with peers, understand how to choose what leisure activities give you enjoyment, and understand the rules (both official and "social" rules) of participation.
"A recreational therapist utilizes a wide range of activity and community based interventions and techniques to improve the physical, cognitive, emotional, social and leisure needs of their clients. Recreational therapists assist clients to develop skills, knowledge and behaviors for daily living and community involvement. The therapist works with the client and their family to incorporate specific interests and community resources into therapy to achieve optimal outcomes that transfer to their real life situation." (From Frequently Asked Questions, American Therapeutic Recreation Association)
"Educational benefit" includes areas of non-academics! Remember that the ultimate goal of special education is to provide the appropriate instruction and services so that a student can become an independent member of society, to the extent possible. Skills related to the ability to socialize appropriately, work in groups, communicate effectively, etc, are important parts of educational benefit. The ability to access the community, including for recreation and leisure activities, is also important for students to learn.
Examples of situations where RT services may be appropriate:
Students whose unique needs include social skills deficits, such that they have an inability to access recreation and leisure independently. Students with autism spectrum disorders, for example, may have a difficult time understanding how to choose what activity to participate in, how to join a game, and how to utilize appropriate social skills to interact with others during leisure time.
Students who are in the "transition plan" phase of their educational program. Students who will be transitioning to adult life may need some specialized instruction to help them learn about how to independently access leisure and recreational activities in their community.
California, for example, defines RT as including:
(a) Therapeutic recreation services, which are those specialized instructional programs designed to assist pupils in becoming as independent as possible in leisure activities, and when possible and appropriate, facilitate the pupil's integration into regular recreation programs;
(b) Recreation programs in schools and the community which are those programs that emphasize the use of leisure activity in the teaching of academic, social and daily living skills; and the provision of nonacademic and extracurricular leisure activities and the utilization of community recreation programs and facilities;
(c) Leisure education programs which are those specific programs designed to prepare the pupil for optimum independent participation in appropriate leisure activities, including teaching social skills necessary to engage in leisure activities, and developing awareness of personal and community leisure resources.
Title 5, California Code of Regulations, section 3051.15
Recreation and leisure can be areas of unique special education and related services needs for a student with a disability. These needs must be taken into consideration when developing the student's IEP. An RT assessment can be conducted by a Certified Therapeutic Recreation Specialist (CTRS), and should address how the student's functioning in the areas of physical, cognitive and social / emotional affect his/her ability to appropriately access leisure and recreational activities. Appropriate access to a leisure activity does not just mean playing the game - it means being able to understand the purpose of engaging in recreational activities with peers, understand how to choose what leisure activities give you enjoyment, and understand the rules (both official and "social" rules) of participation.
"A recreational therapist utilizes a wide range of activity and community based interventions and techniques to improve the physical, cognitive, emotional, social and leisure needs of their clients. Recreational therapists assist clients to develop skills, knowledge and behaviors for daily living and community involvement. The therapist works with the client and their family to incorporate specific interests and community resources into therapy to achieve optimal outcomes that transfer to their real life situation." (From Frequently Asked Questions, American Therapeutic Recreation Association)
"Educational benefit" includes areas of non-academics! Remember that the ultimate goal of special education is to provide the appropriate instruction and services so that a student can become an independent member of society, to the extent possible. Skills related to the ability to socialize appropriately, work in groups, communicate effectively, etc, are important parts of educational benefit. The ability to access the community, including for recreation and leisure activities, is also important for students to learn.
Examples of situations where RT services may be appropriate:
Students whose unique needs include social skills deficits, such that they have an inability to access recreation and leisure independently. Students with autism spectrum disorders, for example, may have a difficult time understanding how to choose what activity to participate in, how to join a game, and how to utilize appropriate social skills to interact with others during leisure time.
Students who are in the "transition plan" phase of their educational program. Students who will be transitioning to adult life may need some specialized instruction to help them learn about how to independently access leisure and recreational activities in their community.
Friday, May 1, 2009
So what is a NPS anyways?
A Non-Public School ("NPS") is a privately operated, publicly funded school that specializes in providing educational services for students with needs so exceptional they cannot be met in a public school setting. (cacfs.org)
Can my child go to a NPS?
The decision to place a child in a NPS is an IEP team decision. In making a placement determination, the local education agency ("LEA") must ensure that a continuum of program options is available to meet the needs of your child. Thus, when a school district is making its offer to your child, it must consider all or any combination of the following:
Once your child is enrolled in a NPS, that NPS must provide all services specified in the IEP, unless the NPS and LEA agree otherwise.
NPS & the least restrictive environment ("LRE")
A frequently used phrase in special education is least restrictive environment.
Under the IDEIA, LRE is: "to the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities . . . are educated with children who are not disabled, and . . . removal of children with disabilities from the regular educational environment occurs only when the nature or severity of the disability of a child is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily." 20 U.S.C. 1412(a)(5)(A).
Because NPS placement generally means that your child will not be educated with non-disabled peers, the IEP team should take into consideration your child's right to be educated in the LRE before placing him/her in a NPS. In accordance with the IDEIA and LRE, a NPS is appropriate if even with the use of supplementary aides and services, the student will not be able to access an educational benefit in the regular education environment.
Therefore, if you are at an IEP meeting and placement options are being discussed, and the resource, SDC and other supplementary aides/services available within the District are not appropriate to meet your child's unique needs and provide him/her with an educational benefit, then the appropriateness of a NPS should be discussed.
Can my child go to a NPS?
The decision to place a child in a NPS is an IEP team decision. In making a placement determination, the local education agency ("LEA") must ensure that a continuum of program options is available to meet the needs of your child. Thus, when a school district is making its offer to your child, it must consider all or any combination of the following:
- Regular Education
- Resource Specialist Program ("RSP")
- Designated Instruction and Services ("DIS")
- Special Day Classes ("SDC")
- Nonpublic, nonsectarian school ("NPS")
- State Special schools
- Instruction in other settings
- Itinerant instruction
- Instruction using telecommunication and instruction in the home, in hospitals and in other institutions
Once your child is enrolled in a NPS, that NPS must provide all services specified in the IEP, unless the NPS and LEA agree otherwise.
NPS & the least restrictive environment ("LRE")
A frequently used phrase in special education is least restrictive environment.
Under the IDEIA, LRE is: "to the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities . . . are educated with children who are not disabled, and . . . removal of children with disabilities from the regular educational environment occurs only when the nature or severity of the disability of a child is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily." 20 U.S.C. 1412(a)(5)(A).
Because NPS placement generally means that your child will not be educated with non-disabled peers, the IEP team should take into consideration your child's right to be educated in the LRE before placing him/her in a NPS. In accordance with the IDEIA and LRE, a NPS is appropriate if even with the use of supplementary aides and services, the student will not be able to access an educational benefit in the regular education environment.
Therefore, if you are at an IEP meeting and placement options are being discussed, and the resource, SDC and other supplementary aides/services available within the District are not appropriate to meet your child's unique needs and provide him/her with an educational benefit, then the appropriateness of a NPS should be discussed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)